Rock Island daily Argus. (Rock Island, Ill.) 1886-1893, 1887-11-03

" I/4gL!4I |TS~ II
TEE CHEF JUSTICE READING THE DECISION.
tain question reversible by the supreme
court, and also one that admits of argument
that is an "open" question. Authorities are
quoted to sustain this preliminary point and
the opinion then proceeds as follows:
in the present case we have had the ben
eft Of argument in support of the applica-
ton, and while counsel have not deemed it
their duty to go fully into the merits of the
questions involved, they have shown US dis
tinctly what the decisions were of which
they complain, and how the questions arose.
In this way We are able to determine As
court in session whether the errors alleged
are such as to justify us in bringing the case
here for review"
The particular provisions of the constitu-
ton of the United States on which counsel
rely are found in articles ", v, vi, and
XIV. OF the amendments, as follows:
Article Iv-The right of the people to he secure
in their persons, houses, papers and effects
against unreasonable searches and seizures shall
not be violated
Arlcte v NO person snail ne com silt In any
criminal case to he a witness against himself
be deprived of life, liberty, or property without
due process of law.
Article Win all criminal prosecutions the ac-
csised shall enjoy the right to speedy and public
trial by an impartial jury Of the state and dis
triot wherein the crime shall have been commit
ted which district shall have been previously as
certained by law.
l Article XIV Section mo tate shall make or
legss or immunitles Of citizens OF the United
States; nor shall any state deprive any person Of
life, liberty or properly without due process of
law.
THAT the first ten articles of amendment
were not intended to limit the powers of the
state governments in respect to their own
citizens, but to operate on the national gov
eminent alone was ordered more than a half
century ago, and that decision has been
steadily adhered to since. tHere follows a
long fist of authorities
at was contended, however in argument
that Though originally the first ten amend
ments were adopted as Limitations on federal
power, yet in so far as they secure and rec
ognizs fundamental rights-common law
| rights-of the man, they make them priv
ilsges and immunities of the man as citi-
| zen of the United States, and can not now
be abridged By state under the fourteenth
amendment And the fourteenth
amendment as TO such rights limits state
power as the ten amendments had limited
federal power 1t is also contendei that the
provisions of the fourteenth amendment
which declares that no state shall deprive
any person of life, liberty, or property with
out due Process of law implies that every
person charged with crime in a state shall
be entitled to trial by an impartial jury,
and shall not be compelled to testify against
himself"
The court then gives the objections urged
against the trial court briefly, and which are
well known to readers, the substance of which
is that the jury was not an impartial one, be-
cause some Of the jurors admitted that their
minds were made up from reading the news
papers, but claimed that evidence would
change their opinions; and that Spies was
compelled to testify against himself, etc !:
and the rule regarding challenges is laid
down as follows:
in Hopt VS. Utah, geo U. S 43(q, it was de
cided by this court that when "A challenge by
defendant in a criminal action to a juror
for bias, actual OF implied, is allowed, and
the juror is thereupon persmptoriiy chal
lenged by the defendant and excused, and an
impartial and competent juror is obtained in
his place, no injury is done the defendant, if,
until the jury Is completed, he has other per-
smptory challenges which he can Use"
@We are, therefore, confined in this case to
the ulings on the challenges to the jurors
who actually sat at the trial OF these there
were but two-TheodOre Denker, the third
Juror who was sworn, and H. T. Sanford
the last, who was called and sworn after all
the peremptory challenges of the defendants
had been exhausted At the trial the
court construed the statute to mean that
although juror called as juryman
may have formed an opinion based
upon rumor or upon newspaper statements,
but has expressed no opinion as to the truth
Of the newspaper statements, he is still quail
fed as juror if be states that he can fair
ly and impartially render verdict thereon
In accordance with the law and the evidence,
and the court shall be satisfied of the truth
OF such statement. 1t is not test question
whether juror viii have the opinion
which he has fOrmeG from newspapers
changed by the evidence, hut whether his
verdict will be based only upon the account
which may here be given by witnesses under
oath
This statute, the court says, so interpreted
dos not differ materially from that Of Utah
territory, to which this court has given effect
IL Hopt vs. Utah supra, nor does it differ
from statutes Of New York, Michigan, and
Nebraska, all of which have either been sus-
tanned by the state courts or have never been
objected to, and: @Indeed the rule Of the
statute Of Illinois, as it was construed by the
| trial court Is not materially different from
that which has been adopted by the courts in
many of the states without legislative action.
A number Of authorities are cited upon this
| point and the decision says:
without pursuing this subject further. ii
is sufficient to say that we agree entirely
| with the supreme court of Illinois in the
opinion that the statute on its face, as con-
strued by the trial court, is not repugnant tc
| section Of article of the constitution Of
that state, which guarantees to the accused
| party in every criminal prosecution speedy
trial by an impartial jury of the county Oh
district in which the offense is alleged t.
have been committed As this is substan
| italy the provisions Of the constitution Of
| the United States on which the petitioners
now rely. 1t follows that even II their posi-
tion as to the operation and effect of that con
stitution is correct, the statute is not open te
the objection which is made against it.
| "We proceed then to q consideration of ths
| grounds of challenge to the jurors Denker
and Sanford to see if, in the actual admins
tration of the rule of the statute by the court
the rights of the defendants under the consti
tuition of the United States were in any way
impaired" The court then gives extracts
| from the examination of Denker by the de
Tense, and says that he "was challenged fol
cause" by the defendants, and finally &C
cepted by both sides, though the defense hat
l43 challenges at the time. The record j:
quoted at length as to the jurors examina
ton. The Sanford case is then taken up
and the record quoted fully, showing tina
the juror was challenged by the defense fol
cause, their peremptory challenges having
been exhausted, but that the challenge wa
overruled and the juror accepted; and on thi
l mint th.a court saws.